I cover the video game industry, write about gamers, and review video games.
You can follow me on Twitter and hit me up there if you have any questions or comments you'd like to chat about.
Disclosure: Many of the video games I review were provided as free review copies. This does not influence my coverage or reviews of these games.
I do not own stock in any of the companies I cover. I do not back any Kickstarter projects related to video games. I do not fund anyone in the industry on Patreon.

Leaked European CleanIT Proposal Would Require The Use Of Real Names And Photos Online

If you’re a EU citizen who enjoys the anonymity afforded to you by the internet, or who doesn’t want their internet browser to come with a built-in terrorist reporting button, pay attention to the latest CleanIT proposal.

Every other month or so a newly revealed or newly drafted internet censorship bill, agreement, or proposal surfaces.

Sometimes these bills aim to restrict freedom of speech online. Others target file-sharing sites, or lay out broad, sweeping measures to help wage the War on Terror.

The latest in this long parade is the European CleanIT project’s latest proposal, which you can read in PDF format here thanks to a document leaked by the group European Digital Rights.

Laced through with questionable ideas, the authors of the proposal appear to be targeting terrorists by severely limiting freedom of speech online for everyone.

One of the more striking suggestions in the proposal is a section calling on internet providers to restrict internet users to real names only while online.

Another “rough idea” from the document would require social media companies to only allow “real” pictures of their users.

So long pseudonyms and avatars, your anonymity is preventing the EU’s ability to reduce “the impact of the terrorist use of internet.”

Knowingly providing hyperlinks on websites to terrorist content must be defined by law as illegal just like the terrorist content itself”

“Governments must disseminate lists of illegal, terrorist websites”

“The Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 (art 1.2) should be explained that providing Internet services is included in providing economics instruments to Al Qaeda (and other terrorist persons and organisations designated by the EU) and therefore an illegal act”

“On Voice over IP services it must be possible to flag users for terrorist activity.”

“Internet companies must allow only real, common names.”

“Social media companies must allow only real pictures of users.”

“At the European level a browser or operating system based reporting button must be developed.”

“Governments will start drafting legislation that will make offering… a system [to monitor Internet activity] to Internet users obligatory for browser or operating systems…as a condition of selling their products in this country or the European Union.”

I love the “terrorist report button.”

You could add it to all the Social Media widgets on websites, too. Tweet This, Like This, Pin This, Report This As Terrorism.

Fun!

“These are so out of scope,” Arthur van der Wees, an IT lawyer in Amsterdam, told Ars Technica. “It is not even something we have to discuss. It’s clearly not legal. You don’t have to have studied law to see this.”

From past experience with these anti internet freedom proposals, the law is of secondary concern.

The authors of the CleanIT proposal in the EU and other bills like SOPA and CISPA are far more concerned with the end-goals than any constitutional limitations, or whether or not something is “clearly not legal.”

After the victory of SOPA many internet activists and free-speech evangelists were delighted that a digital grassroots movement could topple a bill with so much momentum.

I tend toward a bleaker point of view.

This effort is hydra-like in its persistence and form; each time we lop one bill’s head off, three more grow back.

A good deal of money and political power is at stake, after all, and I see few of the powers-that-be changing their opinions on these issues.

Rather, we see new approaches to each obstacle that bars the pro-censorship push.

Thankfully enough freedom of speech online exists for us to still write about these things freely without fear of censorship.

Online activists, groups like the Electronic Freedom Foundation, and any number of other academics, civil rights advocates, and even some politicians can still communicate and do the hard work necessary to stem the tide of noxious legislation and treaties.

Ars Technica managed to track down CleanIT cheif But Klaasen, who noted his surprise that anyone would publish a document clearly labeled not-for-publication.

“I have no problem with publishing everything we do afterwards,” he said. “I’m open for debate, but I’m not convinced that everything should be fully transparent 24/7.”

Indeed. Why on earth can’t a man responsible for drafting a proposal which would clamp down on every citizen of the EU’s freedom of speech online not be able to trust people?

Truly, we need the governments of the world to track our every click online not so much for the terrorists, but because we just can’t trust people these days. We need a beneficent force to keep us honest.

For the children.

So should we be worried?

Maybe. The EFF’s Seth Schoen told Ars: “We should start to freak out, but in a sort of preliminary way.”

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.